Public Comment

Meg Whitman’s misleading campaign for Governor in which she magically claims to be able to fix California’s ills is another example of the bait and switch tactic that many politicians are using these days. Her campaign states that she will “Create Jobs, Cut Government Spending, and Fix Education.” And so far, we only have a few clues as to how she plans to pull off these violations of the laws of physics.

It seems that her plan for the creation of jobs includes “targeted tax cuts.” This is doublespeak and the true meaning of this is tax cuts on the rich. This dates back to Reaganomics in which padding the wallets of the rich was supposed to create a “trickle down,” for the middle class and poor. It is a well known fact that when rich people get more money, they tend to hang onto it. Therefore, these “targeted tax cuts,” will do nothing more than help out the destitute rich people with their economic hardships. No one else will see this money. And this tactic also deprives the state of valuable revenue, a funding gap that must be replaced with higher taxes on the poor and middle class. So, now that we’ve blown up the Meg’s mythical plan for how she intends to create jobs, lets look at the next one:

Meg Whitman’s second campaign promise is to “cut government spending.” She intends to do this partly by raiding the state’s pension system. So, let’s say you’ve worked hard for the State of California for thirty years and you’ve settled down into retirement; get ready to start your new job at Wal-Mart.

In earlier advertisements, Meg was targeting the “welfare cases,” that must be “eliminated.” Sounds like she wants to cut people’s SSI benefits, in that case, on top of cutting pensions. Disabled people, get ready for your new job digging ditches. Governor Arnold has already cut spending to the bone, has reduced SSI, has reduced welfare, has cut every program that can be cut, and more. There is no cutting left to do. Rather than more cuts in spending, Meg needs to raise taxes on the rich. Of course, she won’t do this.

Meg’s website says that in times past when the state’s revenues dropped, taxes were raised to compensate for this--and this has to stop. So if you are in a canoe that’s sinking and you think you ought to dump out some water, also known as “bailing,” you shouldn’t do that; it’s contrary to the Whitman Republican philosophy. You should just let your canoe sink.

Lastly, Meg wants to “Fix Education.” How is she planning to do that, by making teachers more accountable? Teachers are already dedicated to doing a good job, despite being underpaid and overworked. Teachers are already accountable. Education the wealthy areas is still top notch because those towns have chosen to tax themselves so that they will have good schools for their kids. This is a source of educational discrimination that I have not seen a politician address. The real solution is to fix our schools by providing the funding needed. Meg’s idea is likely to be more like taking a bullwhip to the teachers.

We have had rich, celebrity governors wreck the state of California already, including both Reagan and Schwarzenegger. These are actors turned politicians who have made the state friendlier to the rich, but who have been disastrous for everyone else. Whitman seems to be another politician of this vein.

Do the poor and destitute, the seniors and the disabled, and anyone else who is not a member of the rich people’s club all need a kick in the pants in the name of fixing the state? Or can we do without Meg Whitman as our governor?